4 ms·

The bias is obvious, but is there anything factually wrong in the article?

loveparade 3y ago
It's not about what's wrong, it's about the selection bias of what's included in such an article. You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here. Also, "facts" in topics that touch politics and law are complicated. This is not like science where measurement can be unambiguous. Most facts in topics such as these like these are not scientific facts, but highly politicized opinions that are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Much of the legal code is (on purpose) open to interpretation, including what's a security and what's not. When trying to understand a topic like this the IMO best thing you can do is seek our content from people who have a somewhat neutral stance. Don't listen to a16z who want to pump all their crypto tokens. Don't listen to Molly White whose whole career depends on bashing anything crypto-related.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  That's called "expressing an opinion." What world would we live in if the very fact we wanted to talk about something meant we couldn't? You're welcome to write a rebuttal but you're attacking the messenger repeatedly instead. She wrote a cogent concise article that describes what's going on in the real world. Now, we await your brilliance, as soon as you're done repeatedly telling us it's "her career."
  - loveparade 3y ago
    Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, it's just sad to consistently see these highly biased and political opinions being upvoted on a website that's supposedly about rational thinking, not political incentives. I would expect upvoted articles here to strike a fair balance in presenting both sides of the argument, not just one.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      There's absolutely nothing political about this. When did the technocapitalists become the snowflakes? Again, we await your cutting dissection of, well, anything from this horrid bias-ridden article your peers saw fit to upvote.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      I've been here for a few years and never got the impression that this was a rationalist, both-sides kind of site. People submit interesting articles, not fair and balanced coverage of some political debate. From the submission guidelines: "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. [...] anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
- xwolfi 3y ago
  So we should hum, listen to people who say poor people who become "banked" by buying bitcoin ? Crypto is a clown car, so it's hard to make a balanced point on it: either you want to sell your snake oil or you point out it's just snake oil.
- hiq 3y ago
  > You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

It's not about what's wrong, it's about the selection bias of what's included in such an article. You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here. Also, "facts" in topics that touch politics and law are complicated. This is not like science where measurement can be unambiguous. Most facts in topics such as these like these are not scientific facts, but highly politicized opinions that are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Much of the legal code is (on purpose) open to interpretation, including what's a security and what's not. When trying to understand a topic like this the IMO best thing you can do is seek our content from people who have a somewhat neutral stance. Don't listen to a16z who want to pump all their crypto tokens. Don't listen to Molly White whose whole career depends on bashing anything crypto-related.

refulgentis 3y ago
That's called "expressing an opinion." What world would we live in if the very fact we wanted to talk about something meant we couldn't? You're welcome to write a rebuttal but you're attacking the messenger repeatedly instead. She wrote a cogent concise article that describes what's going on in the real world. Now, we await your brilliance, as soon as you're done repeatedly telling us it's "her career."
- loveparade 3y ago
  Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, it's just sad to consistently see these highly biased and political opinions being upvoted on a website that's supposedly about rational thinking, not political incentives. I would expect upvoted articles here to strike a fair balance in presenting both sides of the argument, not just one.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    There's absolutely nothing political about this. When did the technocapitalists become the snowflakes? Again, we await your cutting dissection of, well, anything from this horrid bias-ridden article your peers saw fit to upvote.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    I've been here for a few years and never got the impression that this was a rationalist, both-sides kind of site. People submit interesting articles, not fair and balanced coverage of some political debate. From the submission guidelines: "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. [...] anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
xwolfi 3y ago
So we should hum, listen to people who say poor people who become "banked" by buying bitcoin ? Crypto is a clown car, so it's hard to make a balanced point on it: either you want to sell your snake oil or you point out it's just snake oil.
hiq 3y ago
> You can write a technically "factually correct" article by only including statements that heavily favor one side of the argument, which is what's done here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance